That was my point January. If people with savings had to use them FIRST then there would be less people on benefits so more money for people who are in such awful situations as LithaR.
When people have used their savings they then become eligible for benefits also receiving a better rate and everyone starts from the same point.
It's how care home funding works - if you have assets or savings you self fund. Once they are used society funds your care as long as you need it.
I believe in a system where those in need should receive help and support, I am not a benefit basher at all, but I also believe in fairness, and I don't think it is fair that people should take from the pot when they have savings, thereby reducing the pot and consequently the amount paid to those who have nothing.
It's unequal and that isn't right. If a person has the means to support themselves they should do that, so that people who don't have those means can receive enough support to be able to meet their needs.
When DH was made redundant we didn't WANT to spend his redundancy money on living, we WANTED to squirrel it away for a house deposit. But the truth was we didn't NEED to claim benefits because we could afford to live, on the money we would rather have saved. To have had all that money in the bank and have claimed felt morally wrong, even though we could have.
Benefits should go to those that NEED them, in amounts that meet those needs. It shouldn't be about whether a person has paid into the pot - 'I've worked long enough so now I'm taking out because I can' - it should be solely about NEED, and if you have money no matter what your situation, you aren't in financial need.
Wanting to keep savings, and claiming to enable doing so, isn't fair on those who literally can't live without benefits.